Before we even can start discussing if the MacLaren
plasters can be called "original" or "authentic", we
must know where they come from.

As I learned before the Symposium, the Musée Rodin has
acknowledged already that
"it appears evident that the plasters in question, as itemized in the
list (the MacLaren) provided, do indeed come from the Rudier foundry"
[letter of 23 Aug. 2000 to Maclaren Art Centre - See Part III].

Although the Canadian press later used the word
"fraud", the Musee Rodin itself never used this word nor
suggested these plasters would have been derived from surmoulage on
existing bronzes or originate from unauthorized plaster replication.

CANADIAN RODIN EXHIBIT DEFENDED
AS AUTHENTIC
HEAD OF PARIS RODIN MUSEUM CALLS IT A FRAUD

From Canadian Press

Jul. 31, 2001. 05:23 PM

A Canadian exhibit featuring the work of Auguste Rodin
is authentic, says the man behind the project, even though a Paris museum
devoted to the famous sculptor has suggested the display is a fraud.

''We have immense documentation supporting
(authenticity),'' said William Moore, who spent several years trying to
obtain the Rodin pieces as director of the MacLaren Art Centre in Barrie,
Ont.

Moore defended the exhibit Tuesday after Jacques Vilain,
director of the Rodin Museum in Paris, wrote a letter to a Toronto
newspaper condemning the pieces, which are to be displayed next month at
the Royal Ontario Museum.

''We have always maintained the collection in question
cannot be considered authentic,'' wrote Vilain. ''The public must not be
misled.''

Reading the press release by the Musée Rodin
word-for-word, its critique, these plasters would not be
"original" or "authentic", is only specified as
follows:

1) the criticized pieces are "just" used
foundry plasters, instead of studio or representation plasters, and

Now since the Canadian museums never denied that a large
part of the donation actually consists of such foundry plasters, what does
it mean than in the end, that these foundry plasters "should be
considered as such", as the Musée Rodin demands with so much
emphasis? Does it mean, they should be presented to the public as such? Or
does it mean, they should not be exhibited at all? Or does it only mean,
they are unsuitable to draw further bronze casts from? If they actually
come from the Rudier foundry, like the Musée Rodin confirmed, what is it
then about them, that would forbid us to call them "original" or
"authentic"? And why did Jacques Vilain in an interview say,
there would be "unscrupulous people" in the background? What are
the institutional and economic interests William Moore sees as the true
reason the R.O.M. exhibition is attacked, while previous exhibitions of
the same plasters never attracted the scorn of the Musée Rodin:

Although the Royal Ontario Museum venue is the first
time this collection has been exhibited in full, various works have
appeared at Andros, Bologna, Venice, and Paris where half a dozen were on
view at a well-known left-bank gallery for many years. Other examples from
the cache of plasters once at the Rudier foundry have gone to collectors
and an important museum in the United States with the Musée Rodin’s
acceptance. If there were problems with specific plasters, would it not be
Madame Romain’s duty to bring these items before the authorities as soon
as she saw them, and would it not be Mr. Vilain's duty to name the “unscrupulous
people,” whom he claimed in a recent interview as associated with these
works?

In my opinion, the issues of grievance are not the
plasters, but the bronzes. The MacLaren Art Centre is the recipient by
gift of the plasters in our exhibition and of some bronzes. We plan to
exhibit the former and retain the latter for display in public areas of
our ArtCity project and for teaching purposes.

[Letter from William Moore to Ruth Butler, second half
of October 2001]